On Mon, Jul 30, 2007 at 11:47:48AM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> If this is not relevant in this context, I ask what is relevant ... ?
> The problem you mention is at the cross of my work and the everything  
> list. Now, as I said some days ago, I think that a way to link more  
> formally my work and the everything discussion can consist in defining  
> a notion of basic atomic third person observer moment. The UDA, plus  
> Church thesis + a theorem proved in Boolos and Jeffrey (but see also  
> and better perhaps just Franzen's appendix A) makes it possible to  
> define the comp third person OMs by the Sigma1 sentences of  
> arithmetical language. Those have the shape ExF(x) with F(x) decidable.  
> For example ExPrime(x) (a prime number exists), Ex(x = code of  
> triple(a,b,c) and machine a gives c on argument b), ... This last  
> example show that the notion of Sigma1 sentences is rather rich and  
> encompasses full computability. So the very restricted notion of  

Interesting. Since an observer moment contains all information that is
known about the universe, this led me to identify the observer moment
and the quantum state vector. This is not incompatible with with your
notion of the OM being a Sigma1 sentence, but it places severe
restrictions on the form of the quantum state vector. There can only
be aleph_0 of them for instance. Perhaps these restrictions are
testable? Perhaps there is something wrong with identifying the state
vector with the OM?

A/Prof Russell Standish                  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
UNSW SYDNEY 2052                         [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Australia                                http://www.hpcoders.com.au

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to